Oscar Pistorius trial part 2

[JillJ72]

To continue from previous thread

Hi everyone.

I've been reading both thread and really grateful for the respectful discussion. My partner is Not Interested at all in talking about this. I do feel a bit guilty about it. Does it feel like a form of entertainment at times? A woman lost her life and a mans future is being decided. Two whole families ripped apart. I don't want to lose sight of that. My heart goes out to her mother.

I think it's interesting how people on this thread interpret the same responses by OP differently.

From what understand Nel is being very tough on OP, which I think is extremely important. The judge must be satisfied that the witness has been thoroughly examined, or else there leaves ambiguity of interpretation. Which is what we are all doing at the moment, interpreting, with a bias.

I am very interested to hear what the criminal psychological profile statement will say. As far as I can tell, with my limited background in psychology (I am a general adult psychiatrist with some background in forensic psychiatry and psychology), it appears that on occasions his responses have been congruent with someone who is lying. Unable to tell his story backwards is one example that comes to mind right now. Remembering some aspects in great detail and others not at all is also agreed to be congruent with telling lies. It is possible that he isn't of course, but they are well documented positive signs of lying.

For what it's worth, I think his actions on the night were not in keeping with that of a reasonable man responding to the perceived threat of an intruder, even taking into account the incidence of such in RSA. He didn't ensure the safety of other people in his home before rushing to confront the danger and he did so in a reckless manner, putting himself, his house guest and the 'intruder' in mortal danger.

I think his story, for all parts that don't add up, is implausible, but crucially, possible.

Keeping in mind a leading cause of injury to woman of child bearing age is intimate partner violence, that is statisticlly the most likely cause of Reeva's death.

I'm not saying that is enough to convict the man.

I'm not really saying anything at all, am I? I'm sitting right in the middle of the fence. : )

As you were...

GoshAnne. I love the new adjective. "Nelentless".

I put it to you that Nel is Nelentless

I know what you mean Frontier. I'm watching the proceedings on Sky, and have to remind myself that this is not a drama, this is real - a young woman lost her life in horrific circumstances, and a young man faces a lengthy jail sentence in horrendous conditions

I still tend to think that he didn't mean to kill her, but that he was an adrenaline-fuelled arrogant idiot who's been looking for an excuse to use those guns for some time. Having said that, there was a lot that just didn't ring true this morning....although that doesn't make OP's account of events impossible.

Ah, I couple of things I forgot to mention.

Someone ask for opinions of South Africans, well I spoke to a South African colleague who is of the opinion that:

• it was a relatively safe area
• four shots was excessive

Was otherwise fairly disinterested in the case. Said 'it's a violent country'.

!

I agree with whoever said up thread that even if Reeva weren't his intended victim that he should serve jail time. He ought to be punished for the consequences of his actions. The victims need to feel that he has paid his due. He will never be able to move on from this if he doesn't.

....or will he think that living with the consequences is sentence enough, and spending time in a SA jail (which sound horrendous, esp. in their treatment of disabled prisoners) won't do anything to help Reeva or himself.

As someone upthread said, I wish there was an alternative to jail - but then again, many others have had to go there, it's just that this time we're seeing the personal story behind the crime so we identify with him, the families, we extend sympathy to them all and so on...

The annoying thing about his testimoney is that he is focused on saying what would present him in the best light, rather than simply answering the questions Nel puts to him IYSWIM

He may be remorseful that he killed Reeva, but his overriding concern is still for himself IMO.

I am also interested in the psychological angle. (I am a psychologist though not forensic). I tend to think though, that psychological input can't solve this case definitively one way or the other. It can give you quite strong indications that he is lying, self-centred, emotionally manipulative etc. but none of that actually helps prove murder. He could be all those things and still not guilty of murder. It will be the cumulative effect of a number of small things that make his version just so improbable that will convince the judge.

Exactly, Majestic. In isolation one sign of lying isn't very significant. But on balance...

Interesting that someone suggested a histrionic personality disorder. I would be really interested to read a psychological profile.

I'd love to hear input from people with legal experience, or would it be unprofessional of them to post in relation to this case? I know very little of the legal system here or in RSA.

Can he be convicted on the balance of probabilities?

Am I correct in thinking that he is clearly guilty of causing her death, but it is the determination of intent that is the purpose of the trial because that will influence sentencing?

I think my overriding concern would be for myself too because nothing can change what happened - if I was petrified of what might await me in jail, but knew I had made the mistake that I was claiming to make, I would be desperate to answer the questions in the right way.

But whether that's bias talking I don't know. If he really is telling the truth about what happened then I can't imagine how he must feel and I couldn't watch all of it today for that reason. I desperately hope the judge makes the right decision, whatever that ends up being. Overall I'm hoping I'm wrong about him, as if he is truly a murderer and that is the judges decision, the sentence would be deserved and the family may feel justice has been served (that assumes they believe he is guilty though).

"Long silence as Nel asks whether Steenkamp screamed after first shot. Pistorius says she didn't scream. But he also says the shots were so loud that screams would not have been heard. Nel says people heard a woman scream during the shots"

Is how the Guardian have reported it in their live ticker.

'during the shots'

and sky:

Nel: She's awake, you're shouting, you are screaming. You are 3 metres away, she would have responded. Did she scream while you shot her?

OP: No my lady.

Nel: Are you sure Reeva did not scream after the first shot? Are you OP?

Nel: My lady, I am giving the witness time to answer. I can see he is distressed.

OP: She did not scream. I wish she did.

Nel: Are you sure you would have heard her?

OP: I am not sure, my lady.

Nel: You said she didn't scream.

OP: My lady, the sound of the gunshots was so loud, I was screaming, I couldn't even hear my own voice.

Nel: That is why I am saying, people heard a woman screaming during the gunshots. Can you say that no body screamed during the shots?

OP: Because I was there, Mr. Nel.

Nel: How can you say that, you are forgetting about your ears.

OP: I am talking about the entire evening. why is OP talking about the entire evening when it is clear the questions are about the first shot and the ringing of his ears which would have stopped him hearing

Nel: You cannot get away with this time and time again.

OP: I agreed with Mr. Nel.

Nel: Can you say that Reeva screamed when you fired the first shot? very clearly talking about the first shot

OP: No, my lady because of my ears.

Nel: It is interesting, in your bail application you said no one screamed when you fired the shots.

Roux: My lady, can it just be made clear as to when the screams were heard. We are talking about different times. what's unclear?, Nel has clearly said 'when you fired the shots? or do they mean that there may not have been any witness on record claiming there was a scream after the first shot?

"Nel: It is interesting, in your bail application you said no one screamed when you fired the shots."

I guess this is what Roux was questioning?

in teh bail statement he says

"I fired shots at the toilet door and shouted to Reeva to phone the police.

She did not respond and I moved backwards out of the bathroom, keeping my eyes on the bathroom entrance."

so Roux is correct to question it.

However, still think it's very bizzare that anyone would think it was confusing - Nel was very clearly talking about when the first shot was fired.

Balance of probabilities is not enough: it would need to be beyond reasonable doubt.

The trial is all about his intent, that he caused the death of Reeva is not in dispute.

Bear in mind that to be guilty of murder he would have to have intended to kill, but not necessarily to have intended to kill Reeva. If he intended to kill whoever was behind that door (not knowing who it was) in circumstances that do not give him a lawful excuse, like self-defence, then he committed murder.

If you intend to kill A but miss and kill B, you're still a murderer. You don't have a defence based on arguing you killed B by mistake.

I am totally confused by that - is this like the tree falling in a forest analogy - so does it make a sound if noone hears it? OP is saying she didn't scream because it would have been too loud to hear her isn't he? But that doesn't mean she didn't.

Argh, getting tied up in knots.

If someone heard screaming how were they sure it was a woman? It could be, as he says, just him screaming.

AmI: Nelentless and Rouxthless

AFAIK culpable homicide in SA has no minimum sentence, and the maximum sentence is 15 years.

One of the jouno's quoted a SA cabbie (typical journo cliche, I know) saying something along the lines of, Oscar has to go to jail or loads of men will be shooting their wives.

Which I think is very true.

I imagine the defence psychologist will be there to state that due to OP's disability, he is not the same as the average "reasonable man", his fear would be greater, hence his response would be more fearful and reckless. But I think that would be a very dangerous precedent to set in SA, especially in a country with such high VAW.

If there is a CH conviction, I think he'll get something like 7 years. I can see the rights and wrongs of prison vs not prison though. Nothing will being Reeva back and he has already paid a massive price for killing her, but arguably, just because he had more to lose, doesn't mean he should be punished any less.

Do we know where the first shot hit?

stack please can you explain again where OP goes wrong in the above as i can't see it. Is it just his choice of words?

Angela, thanks.

Further question, then what is required to prove he is innocent in this case is to determine whether he thought that four shots though that door could have not killed a person behind it?

Is that correct?

Or that he genuinely thought he was in immediate peril of harm from the person behind the door, I suppose, though it is difficult to see how that would work (for me, anyway). And that belief was reasonable in law.

it's the bit where OP says 'OP: I am talking about the entire evening'

why would he be talking about the whole evening when Nel is very obviously and specifically talking about the time the first shot was fired.

when posters like LouiseBrooks say "I didn't think OP was talking about earlier in the evening. I'm confused. It's like I'm listening to something different to you" I just think, really? look at the transcript. he clearly says he is talking about the entire evening even though Nel is very clear that he is talking about a specific point after the first shot is fired.

Then Nel says to him "You cannot get away with this time and time again" which I agree with. OP can't get away with claiming he thinks they are talking about a different time, a different photo, a different part of the evening whenever the questions make him struggle.

I think the reason I believed him today was as I was thinking of how u would behave (dangerous I know ). If I was facing Nel I would probably end up telling him what I thought would answer his question. I would be so shot scared that one word out of place would be pounced on

Having said that OP was adamant today that he spoke to Reeva in a soft voice not a whisper. I'm sure he said whisper yesterday though

From the BBC website, Frontier:

Mr Pistorius must know that if he admits he shot at the door "deliberately" - regardless of whether he thought Reeva Steenkamp or half a dozen armed burglars were inside - then he has also come perilously close to admitting he intended to kill someone. That makes it easy for the prosecution to argue they have proved it was murder, or at the very least culpable homicide.

And so, the athlete continues to walk his narrow tightrope and insist on four "accidental" gunshots - on top of the other accident in the restaurant. Mr Nel, meanwhile, is gleefully tugging on that same rope.

Ultimately, Mr Pistorius's strategy at this trial is to argue that he is, in an admittedly repentant and awkward fashion, innocent on all charges.

Perhaps so. But it is an intellectually nuanced and demanding argument that that athlete, by turns distraught and pedantic, often struggles to articulate, alone on the stand with no counsel to fall back on.

"If someone heard screaming how were they sure it was a woman? It could be, as he says, just him screaming."

the whole point is ... has a witness or witnesses said they heard a shot and then screaming?

There would be no reason for OP to be screaming in a high pitched way between shots but every reason that it might have been Reeva.
He says he screamed before the shooting and after the shooting.
He says she did not scream but really what he means is the gunshots made it so he was unable to hear if anyone was. Other people, not so close to the gunshots, might have heard a woman screaming after the first shot.

The first shot hit her hip.